The "Budget Uncertainty Tax"

As the play-acting drama of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations continue -- a drama that would be ridiculous and laughable were it not so detrimental to the ability of individuals and businesses to plan for their immediate future -- we would like to offer several related observations.

First, we point out that the entire "fiscal cliff" scenario is itself the product of the inability of the elected representatives in Washington DC to agree upon a budget.  This inability is not new -- it has become a regular feature of political life over the past decade.  In fact, although the Congress did pass what is often called a "budget" in 2009 (and has not passed one since), the 2009 measure was only a temporary "omnibus spending bill" and to find the actual date of the most-recent budget passed into law in the US, one needs to go back to 1997 (now over fifteen years ago).

This inability of Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement is compounded by the fact that the two sides cannot even agree upon what the problem is, let alone which measures should be taken to solve the problem.  In this case, some believe that government spending is the problem, while others believe that government spending is the solution, and some believe that low tax rates are the problem, while others believe that low tax rates are the solution.

But the problem is much deeper than that, as it is clear that even within the major political parties there are deep divisions over how to define the real problem.  Within Republican ranks, for example, it has recently become clear that there are deep divisions between those who are arguing that the main focus should be on the "debt ceiling" while others argue that the debt ceiling is a red herring and that the real focus should be on pro-growth tax reforms and regulation reform (see for example this article). 

The situation has become so divisive that an increased level of cynicism and pessimism among those who have to try to do business in a world that is impacted by the decisions of these "leaders" is entirely understandable.  We believe that it is reasonable to conclude that an era of budget uncertainty is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and that the real questions investors should ask are how it will impact them, and what they should do about it?

We believe that this government-induced "budget uncertainty" acts as a drag on business, because it creates additional uncertainty about where tax rates will be from one month to the next, causes business leaders to be more cautious than they would otherwise need to be, and generally saps economic growth and productivity as energies and attention is diverted away from primary business concerns and into all sorts of political analysis and tax-planning activities.  This drag on business activity caused by budgetary uncertainty is very similar to the drag on business activity that comes from misguided monetary policy that makes it  more difficult for businesses to predict the future price of raw materials or the future strength of  different currencies, and more difficult for lenders to provide capital to businesses that need it to expand (see here and here).

We might call the drag on business imposed by the budget follies of the past fifteen years a sort of a tax: the "Budget Uncertainty Tax."  It is not an actual tax in that it doesn't represent business activity that is taxed after revenues are made and employees are paid -- instead, it is a tax that is taken in the form of revenues that are never made in the first place.  In that sense, it is a "stealth tax" in much the same way that inflation can be a stealth tax.

So what should investors do when they perceive that businesses are likely to be facing a "Budget Uncertainty Tax" for the next several years?  Well, we don't believe that the answer is to run and hide, trying to escape the problem by not investing in businesses at all.  We believe that almost all investors need the potential growth that comes from participating in the success of well-run businesses over the course of many years, and that investment in growing companies has historically been one of the very best defenses against the loss of purchasing power caused by inflation and other destroyers of wealth (see here and here for example).

However, during times when the obstacles to business success multiply -- obstacles such as the ones described above -- the need to become more discriminating in the businesses to which one commits capital increases dramatically.  History appears to illustrate that during better business climates, the "rising tide lifts all boats" and investors can do fairly well by owning just about any group of well-run companies.  During such periods, the advice to "just invest in an index" becomes popular (during the 1960s, an early version of large-cap "indexing" called the Nifty Fifty strategy was popular).

During uglier periods, however, investors need to be more like the prospector panning for gold, keeping only what are true nuggets and discarding companies that might be worth considering in better times (companies that might turn into diamonds if given the chance, but may never get that chance in the more uncertain climate). 

We will continue to discuss this subject in future posts.

Continue Reading

AIER's essay on "A World of Persistent Inflation"

Last week, the venerable American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) published a clear and comprehensive study of monetary policy in the post-WWII United States, entitled "A World of Persistent Inflation," by Stephen R. Cunningham and Polina Vlasenko.  While somewhat long and involved, it provides an excellent discussion of an absolutely critical topic for investors, as well as some much-needed historical perspective to frame the shorter-term news that can monopolize one's attention in this "information age."

The essay's conclusions are stark and fairly straightforward:  increased government expenditures can be covered by increased taxes or by increased government borrowing, both of which can create increased public resentment. Most people understand how increased taxes can create resentment.  Increased government borrowing creates resentment by driving up interest rates on government debt, which then drives up interest rates on everything else, increasing borrowing costs for individuals, families, and businesses. By creating new money to buy up debt, however, interest rates can be kept low, masking the cost of borrowing. The study shows that this method has become the preferred method in the US since 1940.

By creating money in order to keep borrowing rates lower, however, the cost of those increased government expenditures are not erased, but transformed into a different kind of cost, one that can be less noticeable and cause less public resentment than exorbitant taxes or exorbitant borrowing costs.  As you might guess, this new cost is inflation, and it can be thought of as a sort of "stealth tax."  While extremely high inflation does cause widespread anger among the populace, steady but less elevated inflation rates can cost individuals just as much as taxes over the years (perhaps even more, depending on one's individual situation) without many people even noticing what is going on.

This subject is one on which the AIER has a long history of producing outstanding research, most notably in their essential study entitled "Stand still, little lambs, to be shorn."  We recommend that all our readers go back and revisit our comments on that essay, and the essay itself (which AIER has updated in the interim since we discussed it -- the latest version can be found here).

The newer "World of Persistent Inflation" essay is timely, as the Fed announced yesterday that it will continue buying mortgage securities at a rate of $40 billion per month, and that it will continue buying long term Treasury securities at a rate of about $45 billion per month.  Both of these measures had been enacted in order to keep interest rates lower, for the reasons described above.

Additionally, the Fed had previously been selling shorter-term securities in the same amount as it was buying longer-term securities (known as Operation Twist).  It announced yesterday that it will discontinue this selling, which marks a major step in further expanding its balance sheet.

While some investors may fear that these expansionary and accommodative policies by the Fed will lead to out-of-control hyperinflation, an understanding of the thesis of this latest AIER essay by Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Vlasenko points to a different conclusion.

As explained in that essay and outlined above, the cost of ever-expanding government spending can be passed on to the citizens of a country in three ways: it's a case of "pick your poison."  The cost can be passed on in the form of taxation (unpopular and acutely painful), in the form of higher borrowing costs (unpopular and acutely painful), or in the form of a long-term policy of inflation (much more difficult to detect, because the poison is subtle and slow to act, and when administered properly it causes some grumbling but after decades of such treatment the people generally accept it as part of the way things are supposed to be).

Based on this analysis, hyperinflation (which is unpopular and acutely painful) is less likely than a policy of persistent inflation, which is exactly what the authors titled their article, and exactly what the policies we see from the Fed are likely to create in the long run.

In other words, "Stand still, little lambs, to be shorn."

This subject is very important for investors to understand, as they weigh their strategies for the protection of their purchasing power into the future.  It is part of the reason why we recently reiterated our conviction that "we continue to believe that the best course for investors is to diligently seek out well-run, innovative companies in whose growth they can participate through equity ownership -- something that becomes all the more important during periods in which such growth is more difficult to find."

The search for growing innovative companies in which to invest is not a luxury in a "World of Persistent Inflation" -- it is a necessity.

Continue Reading

"Cornucopians" and "neo-Malthusians"

In our previous post (on Thanksgiving), we noted the prevalent symbol of the cornucopia, closely associated with that holiday.  

It is an appropriate symbol, for in spite of all the problems in the world today, we can all admit that there is much to be thankful for, and that while unending goods and services do not simply appear miraculously (as they do from a cornucopia), the innovation and hard work of countless men and women operating under the free enterprise system have in fact created an abundance of very good things.  Among those we might list are new medical treatments, semiconductors and networks and all that they enable, increasing harvests of food, and many other wonders.

 

There have certainly been those along the way, however, who have shaken their head at this increasing prosperity, called it illusory or even a dangerous fiction, and issued dire pronouncements which generally centered around the warning that production cannot keep up with consumption forever, and that "we" must take steps to limit demand -- usually by limiting population growth, or even by limiting population.  Some of those in this camp actually refer to those who do not share their zero-sum fixed-pie view of the world as "cornucopians," which they use as a term of derision.

Here is a webpage written by a current university professor who uses that term, and who clearly comes down on the side of the anti-cornucopians (although it is billed as an examination of the "perspectives" of both sides, the zero-sum arguments take up the majority of the essay).  Here is another one, also written by a (different) university professor, and also coming down against the assertions of the "cornucopians".  One wonders if anti-cornucopians celebrate Thanksgiving, and if so whether they have cornucopias as part of the decorations or not.

Fortunately, history has decisively proven the zero-sum paradigm to be bankrupt.  Those economic systems that have enabled people to innovate and create and produce have seen results in direct proportion to the degree that they have done so.  Those economic systems that tried to enforce a zero-sum view of the world (seizing what others produce, with the result that nobody wants to produce anymore) have generally collapsed, and sometimes they have even been replaced with systems that give their people more freedom to innovate and grow.

It is astonishing that many continue to espouse extreme zero-sum ideologies, to the point that the arrival of the seven billionth person on the planet last year was celebrated with a National Geographic site that asks "are there too many of us?" and with articles asking whether a world-wide "one-child policy" might be a prudent idea.

Students of economics and history will immediately recognize these lines of argument as "Malthusian," after the Reverend Thomas Malthus.  In fact, both of the university professor-authored papers cited above specifically use the term "neo-Malthusian" as the opposite of "cornucopian," and align themselves with the "neo-Malthusian" camp.  The neo-Malthusians are pessimistic about the idea human innovation will keep us ahead of ongoing demand placed on resources, particularly as populations continue to grow.

The counter to this argument, to which some of the neo-Malthusian authors do make reference, is the idea that it is a mistake to look at growing populations only as potential consumers of resources, rather than as the most important multipliers of resources, through their innovation.  In other words, each person is not just a potential problem but a potential solution, because human innovation actually creates new resources as if by magic (like a cornucopia!).

Innovation makes things in our natural world become resources that were previously useless.  For example, until cars, ships and airplanes could use petroleum products for fuel, petroleum was not a desirable resource.  It was the innovation of human inventors that made today's resources "turn into" resources in the first place!  Therefore, while future population growth will certainly create greater pressure on existing resources, the future innovation and inventions of some of those members of the future population will almost certainly "create" new resources that we don't even think of as resources today.

This is why, as investors and as believers in the free enterprise system, we are so convinced of the importance of growth and innovation -- and in the importance of providing capital to innovators and to innovative companies.  It is also why we are so convinced of the importance of keeping the obstacles to growth and innovation as low as humanly possible.

Ironically, as defenders and supporters of capitalism and free enterprise, we are on the more "cornucopian" side of the equation, rather than the "Malthusian" (or "neo-Malthusian") side of the equation.  In popular literature and movies, "capitalists" are often depicted as heartless Malthusians, one of the most famous being Ebenezer Scrooge in the Christmas Carol of Dickens, who makes a reference to helping the poor as being wrong, saying that it would be better for the hungry to hurry up and die, in order to "decrease the surplus population."

We would argue that the popular association of capitalism with Malthusianism is wrong, and that it is the proponents of free enterprise who understand that the pie is not necessarily a fixed pie but that it can be a miraculously growing pie, and that people cannot be "surplus" because it is people who make that pie grow!

Again ironically, the neo-Malthusians of today are often found in the halls of academia and the centers of government; both of which are centers of zero-sum thinking.

This is an important subject, and one that investors should understand.  It is one that has important bearings on investment, and one that points to the message which we have woven into our posts throughout the history of this blog, that growth really is the answer.

Continue Reading

Happy Thanksgiving, 2012!

As this previous post points out, we recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of this blog, which means that as Thanksgiving approaches for 2012 we already have five previous Thanksgiving posts to look back on from prior years.  You can re-visit them yourself by following these links: 

• 2011
• 2010
• 2009
• 2008
• 2007

 All of those previous posts featured the image of a "cornucopia," a traditional Thanksgiving motif.  The cornucopia (or "Horn of Plenty") symbolizes abundance of blessings, in fact a miraculous super-abundance -- one which cannot be depleted and in fact never runs out.  It is a fitting symbol for a holiday that commemorates that feast celebrated in 1621 to give thanks for their first successful harvest by the pilgrims of Plymouth Bay Colony, joined by the Wampanoag Indians led by Massasoit (who actually provided much of the food).

Those settlers, who had experienced hunger and even seen loved ones and friends die of starvation, did not take food for granted, and Thanksgiving was established to remind successive generations that we should not take the blessings that we enjoy for granted either (noting that sufficient food is one of the most fundamental of those).

In our previous Thanksgiving posts, we have also pointed to the importance of economic production -- and a focus on the production side of the economic equation -- because increased production makes the "pie" bigger for everyone.  Many economists focus excessively on the consumption side or "demand side" of the equation, and by doing so fall into the error of viewing the world as a "fixed pie" or "zero-sum" situation, in which scarce resources must be divided up between competing populations and an increase in population necessarily means that someone will have to get less or even go without.  We have long rejected that view.

Fortunately, in this country, economic liberty has created an environment in which people are largely free to innovate, create, and produce, and that environment has attracted an influx of people from all over the world who have done just that -- with the result that production has been so abundant it really does at times resemble a cornucopia.
 
This Thanksgiving, we can be thankful for our freedom and belief in the value of every human being as well as each of our ability to be the real solutions to basic economic problems.

We wish all of our readers a very happy Thanksgiving 2012.

Continue Reading

Missing from the discussion of the fiscal cliff: GROWTH!

Here's a video clip of Gerry Frigon speaking on television yesterday, November 13, 2012 about the "fiscal cliff" and the larger issue of economic growth.

Yesterday we wrote that the hype about the fiscal cliff should spur lawmakers on both sides of the issue to tackle some real and fundamental tax reform, doing away with the rat's nest of exemptions in order to support a lower, flatter tax. 

In the above clip, Gerry reiterates a belief that is at the heart of our investment philosophy: that growth is the answer to solving the economic problems that the US -- or any other country -- faces.  Any suggestions for changes to the tax code are only valid to the degree that they promote human freedom and economic growth.  Budgetary problems such as those surrounding the fiscal cliff can ultimately only be alleviated by economic growth.  Even the problems in Europe cannot be solved by "austerity" in the long run -- they can only be solved by a vibrant, healthy and growing economy which supports business formation.

Previous posts on this subject include:

• "Growth is the answer: the primacy of human creativity"

• "'Austerity' is often a code-word for 'anti-growth measures'"

• "The problem with 'austerity' plans: Europe should cut spending AND cut tax rates"

It is our view that this is an issue that all can agree on, regardless of politics. 

Continue Reading